Search for: "He v. Holder"
Results 5641 - 5660
of 5,733
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jun 2007, 2:45 am
Ottaco Acceptance, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 7:52 am
Earlier this week, the 6th Circuit in Warshak v. [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 3:21 am
Warshak v. [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 11:45 am
CSIRO v. [read post]
17 Jun 2007, 10:47 pm
Triumph Actuation Systems LLC v Aeroquip-Vickers Ltd and another [2007] EWHC 1367 (Pat), a Patents Court decision of Mr Justice Pumfrey on Friday 15 June 2007 (available on BAILII here) is a decision that reflects both the strategic options available to the holder of a patent in terms of its pre- and post-grant amendment and on the limitations which the law imposes on amendment so as to prevent abuse.In 1998 Triumph obtained a European patent for a power transfer unit, a piece of… [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 7:45 am
(HLC Properties Ltd. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2007, 3:21 pm
In Joseph v. [read post]
6 Jun 2007, 10:34 am
In Walter Thompson v. [read post]
5 Jun 2007, 6:43 am
See Genentech, Inc. v. [read post]
25 May 2007, 4:24 am
Caveat emptor (enter at your own risk).Opinion in the consolidated casePerfect 10 v. [read post]
23 May 2007, 10:35 pm
’ As Abercrombie is now the senior mark holder, however, the field includes only competitors whose marks incorporate moose images. [read post]
20 May 2007, 6:10 am
In Holder v. [read post]
19 May 2007, 12:09 pm
Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, and Madsen Estate v. [read post]
18 May 2007, 8:32 pm
In Pecore v. [read post]
18 May 2007, 2:51 pm
A newly created Standing Commission will make recommendations to Congress regarding the Y visa numerical cap for each fiscal year following the initial year of the program Title V Title V restructures and rebalances the current system by which green cards are distributed. [read post]
16 May 2007, 6:44 am
The validity of a browse-wrap agreement was denied by the San Jose Court on the case Comb v. [read post]
15 May 2007, 9:34 pm
Eisai v. [read post]
12 May 2007, 10:15 pm
Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, and Madsen Estate v. [read post]
8 May 2007, 8:02 am
The court held that:where the defendant uses a trademark to describe the plaintiff's product, rather than its own, we hold that a commercial user is entitled to a nominative fair use defense provided he meets the following three requirements: First, the product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or… [read post]
7 May 2007, 11:03 pm
"No company will ever die because of the high price premium for Aids drugs in middle-income countries," he said - "but patients may. [read post]
